Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Odoro Susan (Civil Appeal 89 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 118 (29 July 2024)
High Court dismissed Stanbic Bank’s appeal, upheld enforcement of a workers’ compensation award, and held the employer’s evidence did not rebut the work-related injury presumption.
Sage v Balimunsi and Another (Civil Appeal 31 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 142 (27 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed an appeal for want of leave, holding that the orders challenged were not directly appealable and the appeal was incompetent.
Kadra v Otule and Others (Miscellaneous Application 178 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 309 (17 August 2022)
The High Court may only transfer suits from subordinate courts if those suits were originally filed in courts with proper jurisdiction. In this case, the applicant's suit was filed in the Chief Magistrate's Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the subject matter at the time of filing. The subsequent appreciation in land value does not retroactively confer jurisdiction. The applicant's attempt to transfer the suit is an abuse of process, as the issue of jurisdiction should have been resolved in the lower court. The law is clear that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by transfer…
Source excerpt
Ocom and Others v Erongot (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 306 (20 June 2022)
The applicants are aggrieved persons as they were not parties to the proceedings that resulted in the award of 86 acres of land to the respondent, nor did they authorize Okwalinga Opolot Michael to represent their interests via power of attorney. The expansion of the original claim from 9 acres to 86 acres without joining all interested parties deprived the applicants of their right to be heard, violating Articles 28 and 42 of the Constitution. The magistrate's court's jurisdiction was questionable due to the dual nature of the land (customary and subject to registration) and the value exceed…
Source excerpt
Kalangwa and Another v Ssentongo and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1338 of 2020) [2021] UGHCLD 219 (28 October 2021)
The court found that the applicants were aggrieved parties as their title to the suit land was cancelled and both parties claimed ownership. Although the applicants failed to particularize fraud in their pleadings, this omission did not vitiate their case and could be cured by amendment. The suit was not only challenging the cancellation of title but also the acquisition of title by the respondents, making it an omnibus suit. The trial judge erred in dismissing the suit solely on the basis of Section 91 of the Land Act without considering the fraud allegations and the challenge to the respond…
Source excerpt
Dr. Joseph Kibuyaga and 2 Others v Eriab Sebyatika (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 822 of 2018) [2021] UGHCLD 46 (31 March 2021)
The High Court dismissed an application to reinstate a revision matter, holding that the absence of a certified lower-court ruling made the revision incompetent.
Walukaaga v Kabanda (Misc. Cause No. 185 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCD 116 (30 September 2015)
The court held that judicial review is not the proper remedy in this case because the applicant was challenging the decisions of a Magistrate's court, for which the law provides a specific remedy—revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act. Judicial review is only available where no adequate alternative remedy exists, and in this case, the applicant should have pursued revision proceedings to address alleged jurisdictional errors or irregularities. The respondent did not make the decisions complained of; rather, they were made by the trial Magistrate. The application for judicial rev…
Source excerpt
